Mtown_Quaker

@BB5....Here is a question for you. What Government program EVER comes in at estimated cost?

Take Medicare for instance, the closest analogue to PPACA I can find - the original estimates of Medicare cost to Taxpayers was off by orders of magnitude - HUNDREDS of billions. Or Medicaid, which is a form of 'PPACA lite' - the cost estimates were off on the order of a couple hundred billion over the long term.

And this is just the Taxpayer funded cost. What this 'Papa John surcharge' represents is what we will see on a much broader scale in the private economy. A good number of businesses are going to raise prices, which will hit after tax income of 'low income' people. Is this what you want? I don't think that for a moment.

We CAN agree that some sort of healthcare financing reform is needed. But PPACA ain't it. It will be disastrous to the country.

No way, no how. You have to be fiscally delusional to vote for more debt. Why not try cutting spending? The people of NJ are not a bottomless pool of cash to fund the wish lists of college presidents (or Governors).

The Author correctly points out that the 'recession' has hit black people harder than white people. The quantitative data bears that out. But I think if you made the following substitutions, the points he made are equally valid.

In all of these cases, the 'recovery' that our President says is happening just isn't for these groups. If you are a 'knowledge worker, aged 30+, BA/BS or better level of education' - your reality is a hell of a lot different. The unemployment rate is roughly 5% and jobs can be found - not easily, but they are out there.

The current policies in place have failed. Until the policies change, we can expect the same. We need a very different approach to the problems we have.

"The U.S. is abdicating its leadership as a force for good in the world."

Oh please....S-LEB, you cannot be serious. With or without the UN, the USA will be a force for good in the world. There is no country on this planet who does as much, gives as much, helps as much as the USA. It is not even remotely close. To suggest otherwise is simply willful ignorance.

Maybe we need to think about deploying the National Guard. While I do not have any doubt that the Camden County police are competent and professional, it seems to me that they could deploy the whole county police force there and still not make an appreciable dent in violent crime. It is the murder capital of the country.

It would be a drastic measure to declare a limited state of emergency (heck, I do not even know if we can do that), but I am not seeing how things will get any better there without a sustained, overwhelming force on hand. That goes completely against my libertarian outlook on things, and makes me uncomfortable, but honestly I do not see a better alternative to 'solve' the violent crime problem.

I am not even sure that decisively stamping out violent crime would 'save' the current generation in Camden. That said, we owe it to Camden to try.

Laws passed in the 'heat of the moment' in response to tragedies are usually really bad news.

We do not need 'more' gun control in NJ - we need a lot less. In fact, we could use 'concealed carry' to protect ourselves. The problem is not with your run-of-the-mill, law-abiding citizen. The problem is the criminal, the deranged, and the disturbed. Maybe the focus should be there, instead.

Maybe the answer is to make it easier - not harder - to get firearms. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests states with 'concealed carry' laws saw violent crime rates decline at a greater rate than states that have very restrictive laws.

Passing yet more laws will not stop criminals from getting guns. The Mayors seem to miss this point. It is not your typical law-abiding citizen blowing people away for the hell of it. By and large, these deaths are at the hands of recividists - people intimately familiar with our criminal justice system already.

I think Assemblyman Schroeder and the Governor are both wrong. If the Assemblyman had a shred of honor or decency, he would simply step aside. It is abundantly clear the Assemblyman has neither.

As for the Governor: Think about the message you are sending. Your AG has filed criminal charges against this man. Are you saying that you believe the AG just files criminal charges for the hell of it?! Sort of like, "Oh, I got bored so I figured I would make everybody's day a little more exciting..." Yeah, way to show support for the guy who works for you.

If indictment by a Grand Jury is the new standard, things have fallen very, very far indeed.

@UR...The point is, I did read what you wrote. The problem you seem to be having is that you got 'caught' making a statement that is completely disconnected from reality. You state that you support equal rights for all, and in the next breath, you appear to support policies and programs that treat people in an inherently unequal way.

You either support equal rights for all, and reject preferences of ANY kind for ANY reason at ANY time...or you do not. Seems simple enough to me. Try giving a direct answer.

@JJ...When people say there is NO proof, they are flat out mistaken. There IS proof. Voter fraud is as old as the Republic. Anyone who is stupid enough to state differently was clearly not paying much attention in history classes. Whether it is special interest voters groups, or having ineligible voters (like felons, in some states) on the rolls; it is out there.

The question that 'should' be asked is whether voter fraud rises to a level that affects the outcome of an election. That is a much tougher proposition. It would take a monumental effort to compile the publically available data, state by state, county by county to make that determination. I think ultimately what we would find is that there is a consistent level of voter fraud in nearly every election at a state/federal level, but not at a high enough level to change the outcome of the election in something like 99% of elections. That is my supposition, anyway.

All of this said: It is absolutely the prerogative of a state to determine whether or not they want to require a photo ID.

@FLP...There was nothing random about it. It was quite deliberate. The point? Requiring photo ID for a wide variety of reasons, public and private, is a pervasive practice. If a state wishes to make that a requirement, they are free to do so. I have no issue with it.

If legislation like that ever makes the NJ legislative docket, then it would be worth having a debate about it. Until then - it makes zero difference.

If I want to rent a car, I have to present a photo ID.
If I want to enter into a Federal building, I have to present photo ID.
If I want to enter a District Court, I have to present a photo ID.
If I want a to board an airplane, I have to present a photo ID.
If I want to claim state benefits, I have to present a photo ID.
In some states, if I want to use a credit card, I have to present a photo ID.
If I want to take out a bank loan, I have to present a photo ID.
If I want to take out a mortgage, I have to present a photo ID.
If I want to obtain gainful employment, I have to present photo ID.

I am sure Readers can provide plenty of other examples. I just don't see the outcry here in the requirement (by government or private entities) to present a photo ID in these other cases. If a state wishes to ensure that every vote cast is from a verified citizen, and elects photo ID as the means to do it - I do not have a problem with that.

I don't think that there is any legislation on the docket here in NJ to require photo ID, is there?

Frankly, I think it is a waste of time, but if a state wants to do that, and spend money setting up yet another bureaucratic apparatus to monitor it - let them.

@B5T....I often have occasion to travel around the country, and have noticed the same thing. For all their talk in the northeast about stamping out any vestiges of racism or bigotry, it is remarkably segregated and prejudiced. Attitudinally, the NE section of the country is the least friendly - in my experience.

@E (and Shape)...Ok, let's assume that the both of you are 100% correct. I take your comments at face value.

There are some children from urban school districts who face the problems you accurately pointed out who go on to be very successful. What common characteristics do they share? Why are those children successful, despite starting in the dugout?

"Yet this same group would deny millions of people who are uninsured access to medical services, which all Americans rightfully deserve."

Ms. Hock is confused. Access to medical care is no greater than, and no less than access to medical care was 2 days ago, 5 years ago, or 10 years ago. The issue was never access. The issue was (and remains) a financing issue. That is what PPACA is all about.

What PPACA has done is to turn a 'patient oriented' system into a 'process oriented' system. That change has some very profound implications. None of them are good.

"Nine of the 10 hottest years since record-keeping began have occurred since 2000." - The key phase here is 'since record keeping began'. We have maybe a half century of fairly accurate data at a global level. I don't think it is 'denial' to reasonably ask and get answers to what is causing the 'problem' before implementing a 'solution'. Particularly when the 'solution' may destroy economies and wind up killing people.

Every day, somewhere on this planet, there is an abnormal weather event. "Climate change" happens four times every year - we usually call those seasons. It is not time to hit the panic button. For example, what if none of the 'cause' is manmade?

My point: Let's find out the cause. Once we know what we are dealing with, we can figure out where to go from there.

Sorry, but I just do not see the problem here. Nobody forces these students to attend these colleges. Nobody forces these students to take out loans. It is not like they wake up one day, duct-taped to a chair in the college classroom, having just signed loan papers. They make voluntary choices.

Maybe it is time for some tough love. How about we just eliminate all federal subsidies or loans of ANY kind for anyone.